Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1658832
No. I see leisure aviation being squeezed out of the sky by cash grabs, airspace grabs, incomprehensible and labyrinthine regulations, increasing scrutiny and sanctions on pilots and vested financial interests.
I don't think that flying over this island is going to get better, safer or more enjoyable.
Leisure aviation,unfortunately, will contract significantly.
#1658844
JAFO wrote:There is one reason for mandating EC and one reason alone, to suggest it is to reduce mid-air collisions or to allow for better utilisation of airspace is disingenuous at best. Those who want to operate unmanned aerial vehicles of all kinds have more money than we do so they will get what they want and we will be mandated to take steps to allow that to happen.


You’ve hit the nail squarely on the head, that and surveillance.
With these initiatives there is nearly always a hidden agenda.
skydriller liked this
#1658899
Dave Phillips wrote:So what? Surely they have just as much right to be there as 'us'?


I didn't say that there was a "So what?", Dave. I just stated the facts as I see them. I've been expecting it for a few years and now it's raised its head.

If there was a "So what?" it would, to my mind, be that we are the ones who will have to pay for equipment to allow them to "be there" and make money from that.
Robin500 liked this
#1658929
NATS are far from perfect


I think NATS knows what’s the ideal but given the various contraints imposed upon it, it could not have achieved much more.

Personally I’d rather have a centralised body have the ability to make larger decisions where appropriate, rather than today's separate organisations doing things piecemeal.
#1658933
I see leisure aviation being squeezed out of the sky


Main risks I see still lie with access to aerodromes both large (e.g. mandatory handling and other fees) and small (e.g. intermittent closures, sold to others, slow approval of instrument procedures).

Other things (e.g. pilot medicals, aircraft licensing, crew licensing, future airspace strategy) seems to have made fair progress in recent years.
Last edited by James Chan on Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1665013
Here's an interesting bit I've come across:

The GA Strategic Network Report by Byron Davies details:

96.... I have received a number of indications that there is a distinct move by some more GA business inclined airports to deter smaller private aircraft from visiting their airfields. This can be brought about by disproportionate landing charges or more severely, high compulsory handling charges. While access to airports must be a matter for airport owners, there is a case that the adverse impact of these changes, should be regulated in some way.


But then this Government consultation states:

3.43 The government’s understanding from engagement with the industry is that the ground handling market is competitive and the quality of ground handling is becoming a more important factor in the market rather than price alone, demonstrating the market is correcting itself. Therefore, the government does not believe there is a case to intervene


My underline.

The government needs to know that lighter side of GA certainly does not require handling. And even if minimum handling costs £15+VAT (Durham), £40+VAT (Newcastle) or £220+VAT (Manchester/Edinburgh/Stansted), the service and result is almost exactly the same to me and makes little difference.

In other words, I feel forced to pay much more for nothing.
#1665192
You gonna tell them, then, James?


Yeap, but I'm just one voice out of many, so I'd encourage everyone here to let them, and/or your representative organisation know.
#1699388
Nine days to go until this consultation closes.

A reminder to submit your views on mandatory ID, infrastructure accessibility and protection, mandatory handling, and anything else, if you haven't already done so.